nebris: (A Dark Boy)
November 6, 2021 (Saturday)

As soon as the Democrats in the House of Representatives, marshaled by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), passed the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (H.R. 3684) by a bipartisan vote of 228–206 last night, Republicans began to say that the Democrats were ushering in “socialism.”

When Republicans warn of socialism, they are not talking about actual socialism, which is an economic system in which the means of production, that is, the factories and industries, are owned by the people. In practical terms, that means they are owned by the government.

True socialism has never been popular in America, and virtually no one is talking about it here today. The best it has ever done in a national election was in 1912, when labor organizer Eugene V. Debs, running for president as a Socialist, won a whopping 6% of the vote, coming in behind Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and William Howard Taft. True socialism isn't a real threat in America.

What politicians mean when they cry "socialism" in America today is something entirely different. It is a product of the years immediately after the Civil War, when Black men first got the right to vote.

Eager to join the free labor system from which they had previously been excluded, these men joined poor white men to vote for leaders who promised to rebuild the South, provide schools and hospitals (as well as desperately needed prosthetics for veterans), and develop the economy with railroads to provide an equal opportunity for all men to work hard and rise.

Former Confederates loathed the idea of Black men voting. But their opposition to Black voting on racial grounds ran headlong into the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which, after it was ratified in 1870, gave the U.S. government the power to make sure that no state denied any man the right to vote “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” When white former Confederates nonetheless tried to force their Black neighbors from the polls, Congress in 1870 created the Department of Justice, which began to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan members who had been terrorizing the South.

With racial discrimination now prohibited by the federal government, elite white southerners changed their approach. They insisted that they objected to Black voting not on racial grounds, but because Black men were voting for programs that redistributed wealth from hardworking white people to Black people, since hospitals and roads would cost tax dollars and white people were the only ones with taxable property in the Reconstruction South. Poor Black voters were instituting, one popular magazine wrote, "Socialism in South Carolina."

This idea that it was dangerous for poor working men to have a say in the government caught on in the North as immigrants moved into growing cities to work in the new factories. Like their counterparts in the South, they voted for roads and schools, and northern men of wealth too insisted these programs meant a redistribution of wealth through tax dollars.

They got more concerned still when a majority of Americans began to call for regulation to keep businessmen from gouging consumers, polluting the environment, and poisoning the food supply (milk was preserved with formaldehyde, and candy was often painted with lead paint). Wealthy men argued that any attempt to regulate business would impinge on a man's liberty, while an army of bureaucrats to enforce regulations would cost tax dollars and thus would mean a redistribution of wealth from men of means to the poor who would benefit from the regulations.

Long before the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia brought the fears of a workers' government to life, Americans who opposed regulation insisted that their economy was under siege by socialists. That conviction did indeed lead to a redistribution of wealth, but as regular Americans were kept from voting, it went dramatically upward, not down.

Regulation of business and promotion of infrastructure is not, in fact, the international socialism today’s Republicans claim. According to Abraham Lincoln, who first articulated the principles of the Republican Party, and under whom the party invented the American income tax, the “legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves---in their separate, and individual capacities.” Those things included, he wrote, “public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage, estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself.”

Heather Cox Richardson

Nebs Sez

Jan. 6th, 2021 05:55 pm
nebris: (Bachmann Pancake)
~Back in 2008 I pointed out that the Democrats had been steadily moving Right after Mondale got trounced by Reagan in 1984, and that the GOP in response had itself moved more to the Right and had now found itself painted into a corner way out in Bat Country. Well, over the past four years we have discovered just how very very far out that corner of Bat Country truly is...

Nebs Sez

Jul. 22nd, 2012 03:24 am
nebris: (FemJihad)
...I was going to post this on Gun Control: Calls For Tougher Regulations Stir Little Support, but it was too long...

"The death toll in Aurora is equal to the average weekend death toll in Chicago's gang war, though nobody gives a damn about that because those are nearly all young black males getting shot in the inner city.

Said gangs are part and parcel of The War on [Some] Drugs, which is of course the result of Prohibition, which has been shown over and over again to not only NOT solve the problem, but make it far worse. And the way gun control has made things worse is by disarming the average citizen.

Spree killers pick locations where they know their targets will be unarmed and defenseless. They want a shooting gallery, not a firefight. And our strict gun control laws provide vast numbers of what the military calls 'target rich environments'.

Now the standard response to this is that if several of the location's occupants had guns and started shooting back there would be bullets flying all over the place and that would be worse. That is a partially valid argument, though it assumes that all gun owners would go 'cowboy', which is not valid, especially in this last event where many of the theater goers were active duty military personnel.

And the argument is besides the point. The point is Deterrence. If a locale is known to allow gun owners to carry, then criminals and most spree killers will avoid said locale. I mean who but an idiot tries to rob a cop bar?

As for suicidal spree killers, they're looking for a date with the SWAT team and probably don't want to merely get wounded by a citizen with only moderate shooting skills.

I know this won't change the minds of the anti-gun zealots. For them I have a mathematical conundrum. There are over ninety million gun owners in this country and we collectively posses over a quarter of a billion guns. [yes, that's a 'B'] Even the entire US military cannot disarm us, nor would they try because most of them were raised with guns themselves.

Now instead of more pointless squawking about More Gun Control, how about making a serious effort about a building a better mental health system so people like Mr. Holmes can find help [or get flagged] before they end up needing to be killed."

Profile

nebris: (Default)
The Divine Mr. M

June 2025

S M T W T F S
12 3 456 7
8 9 1011 121314
1516 17 18 192021
22232425262728
2930     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
OSZAR »